One problem that has long plagued theologians is the so-called "Synoptic Problem." In a nutshell, it is this: The three Synoptists (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) use almost identical language in places. (In fact, a "harmony of the gospels" is sometimes useful, in this regard.) Just how to resolve this? One way, I suppose, would be to adopt the so-called "Dictation Theory": According to this, God just dictated the words to be used, verbatim; so the Synoptists wound up with the very same words in many places. But I reject this theory--as do most serious theologians nowadays. One problem with it is this: It does not explain the vast differences in style between, say, the Synoptists and John; or between Peter and Paul; or between any of the above. Almost 100 years ago, B.H. Streeter devised a theory (known as "The Four-Source 'Q' Theory) that may work, however. It essentially goes like this: Mark--not Matthew, as had long been supposed--is the earliest of the Synoptic Gospels. Matthew used Mark as a base. He supplemented it with a Caesarean source document, known as "Q" (for the first letter of the German word, quelle: meaning source). He further supplemented it with a Jerusalem source document, known as "M" (which gives Matthew its distinctively Jewish flavor). Already, we have accounted for three of the four sources. Moreover, Luke is believed to have used an Antiochene source document, known as "L." This, in addition to Mark and "Q." The theory is, admittedly, not perfect; its most glaring problem is the fact that no such source documents have yet been discovered. Still, I can see no better alternative. Thoughts?
If you would like to read a book significantly better than the original "Q" document....... even if you did have it available already translated into English....... this website will give you an introduction....... www.ThomasTwin.com/ From page 107 to the end of the book is astonishing........... my all time favourite Gospel...... significantly better than John..... which was my favorite until 2012 when I read it...... You can read five paragraphs from it here....... Five paragraphs that have the potential to save this world! http://www.politicalforum.com/index...have-the-potential-to-save-this-world.484728/
The Bible was written by a committee in England in the 680s-692. And since it was a committee effort that was written at one time by a group of writers in the same place they were able to create harmony and consistency in the stories that they wrote. That's why there are no source documents. Their intent was to make it appear centuries older than it was and they were successful. Some people today think that some of the stories were written three thousand years or more ago although there's no evidence that they were, other than basically word of mouth.
The Q theory seems to be the best explanation put forth so far. I've found Burton Mack's work on this subject to be fascinating. Also of interest is John Dominic Crossan's The Historical Jesus which has an exhaustive textual comparison of the gospels (Crossan argues that the sayings attributed to Jesus which having multiple attestations are more likely to be authentic) -although his claim that Jesus was probably illiterate (by virtue of being a peasant) I think is a bit problematic. Mack's claim that Jesus was well versed with Cynic philosophy is probably more likely.
Did you ever notice that Rabbi Yeshua - Jesus stated quite emphatically that BOTH the Father...... as well as the Holy Spirit were greater than him? John 14:28 "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." John 16:7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." This last verse sure seems to imply that the disciples were far better off with the Holy Spirit than that they continue to have Rabbi Yeshua - Jesus there in person teaching them.
That Yeshua guy was a great liar. At one time he boasted about how he was the only teacher and then he said that the Holy Ghost was going to reveal everything.
I don't know any modern scholars who ever claimed they all used the same sources, so I'm getting what the OP is supposed to be about. Mathew and Luke used slightly different genealogies for Jesus, to establish his 'caste' pedigree; some try to spin this as 'biblical error', but in fact it merely reinforces the fact that the Gospels were very much contemporary writings. There were constant conflicts with the genealogies of local families versus the genealogies brought back by the Babylonian exiles and Nehemiah's returning groups, as they didn't exactly match each other's. The importance of this is no small matter for a priest caste where genealogy determined one's 'Jewish purity' and social status as well as how high a post in the priest hierarchy one can claim, some priesthoods were hereditary, for one. Joachim Jeremiah's Jerusalem In The Time Of Jesus devotes almost the entire second half of the book to Jewish obsession with racial purity and genealogy and its social consequences in Jewish society, for instance. there was no single 'Q source', which is why people have problems with trying to find one.
Someone must have written something for the first time - some scribe or teacher. The proto-christian movement would have been very small at its time of writting and any primary source would have been very lucky to have survived especially through the various ealrly christian purges that attempted to define "orthodoxy". The Nag Hamadi cache can attest to that. Same could be said for Socrates, there are no written texts by Socrates only second hand accounts - again these second hand accounts seem to contradict themselves - like the synoptics
The reason the orthodox version was the original is precisely because the sect was small and any deviations would be easily rejected; you have it backwards. The tradition was still transmitted orally, and only written down because in a few decades the sect had spread and a written teaching text was then needed so all could be on the same page. That's why there are so many orthodox versions around compared to any other ancient book, some 20,000+, versus maybe a 1,000 for the next most common ancient text. The Nag Hammadi cache means nothing; in Acts we already have Paul dealing with fakes and deviant philosophies; just because a few writings exist doesn't make them important or invalidates the orthodox books, much less makes them 'real theology'. The Gnostics were small and scattered cults, not the mainstream, and easily rejected as having any relation to Christian theology. That's just made up nonsense by Walter Bauer and carried on by Elaine Pagels and her cult; she was part of the group that found a few scrolls and is building an academic career around peddling her finds as ' new and controversial'; she gets lots of speaking gigs and sells a lot of books from it. Except this has nothing to do with the New Testament theology, which was written down much more recently to the times they took place in, much closer than any other ancient texts have been, most of which were hundreds of years later, versus a couple of decades for the Christian teaching texts, when many were still alive from the times before the Romans taking down the Second Temple. There are no anachronisms in the new testament books, which would most certainly be the case if they were just fakes invented 300 years later, nor would they have been so elaborate if they were merely con men screwing around, and a lot of other reasons why the orthodox versions are the originals. There is also no evidence of a group of the writers colluding with each other to keep their stories straight, either.
